Subject:
|
Re: More information on LEGO Digital Designer and other things
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 May 2003 21:20:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1507 times
|
| |
|
|
[snipped]
> Someone had asked why we don't have the entire brick library in LXF yet. As
> strange as this may sound, we don't have every part in the historical and
> current library in a usable digital format. Many of the parts are digitized
> in a format that is closer to our engineering drawings than a portable 3D
> file. As different projects, applications, "gaming" software, and more was
> created, it created a mish-mosh of file formats. As one of my colleagues
> said, there is no big vault of 3D LEGO pieces inside the company just
> waiting to be opened. There are 100 little disconnected non-compatible
> vaults. Moving towards LXF helps to create that master vault. Of course,
> translating files, creating new ones when needed, and other considerations
> mean it will take time.
:(
If LXF does take off, expect many "historical" parts to be added ;)
> == The SDK ==
> The SDK is a by-product of the DD efforts, and since we are only building DD
> for Windows, the SDK we release will only be Windows. That being said, there
> is no reason it can't be ported, since the SDK will be well documented.
> Really all the SDK is going to be is a set of Windows DLLs. Now before
> anyone strings me up from my toes, please understand that with such a very
> small percentage of our LEGO.com users being non-Windows users, it just
> doesn't make financial sense for use to develop DD for Linux or Mac.
LOL...I fully understand....build a website for users of Netscape when they
only count for 4% of the internet browsers! LOL
I can assume the SDK will be released when DD is also released?
> == The "Standards Body" and "Certification" ==
> As far as the "certification process", there are still some details to work
> out on how widely distributed the SDK is. So for the immediate term, let's
> assume that we are taking about a undefined group of people. [Note: This is
> for discussion only at this point, and may change later]. We will come back
> to this later.
>
> My hope is that there is a standards committee in place that can "certify"
> software, extensions to the format, etc. And like with Web browsers, for
> instance, there is an advantage for being certified as "compliant". Whether
> a software carries the "certified" moniker is up to the "guidelines" of the
> Standards Body, as well as the software developer.
>
> Think W3C for a minute. The .html standard is open to anyone to check out.
> The standards for what .html is or isn't is decided on by a board of
> interested parties (the W3C). Some W3C members are commercial, some
> non-commercial. This committee works out what is best for the overall
> format, and then works to encourage software creators (commercial or
> non-commercial) to implement those standards. If I wanted to develop a Web
> browser that wasn't standards compliant and call it that, then I can. Of
> course, I may get hammered later on by my users.
Actually, I would like to see this part go farther, and see a body of
members create a standard for anything related to LEGO. There are many
technologies being introduced on a daily basis, and it's extremely easy to
get mired into a new format. LDraw/LXF would be the start for standards. I'd
also like to see an XML format standard for these parts, as it may be
possible to create web based applications to show off models using the parts
format without the need of images :)
[snipped]
Until June...
=EO=
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
